So your an Athiest

[God of Mr. Hanky]

No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.

Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).